Recently, the Supreme Court examined the scope of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in a dispute involving alleged benami transactions, testamentary succession, and inheritance rights of a person accused of murder. The Court reiterated that no person can be permitted to profit from his own wrongdoing and held that a person accused of murdering or abetting the murder of another cannot claim inheritance over the victim’s property, even during the pendency of criminal proceedings.
Brief Facts
The Plaintiff instituted a suit seeking declaration of ownership over the suit schedule properties on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by the deceased. Relief for rectification of certain alleged mistakes in the Will and consequential injunction was also sought. The Pefendants contended that the properties were the self-acquired properties of the deceased and had already been bequeathed through an earlier registered Will. They further alleged that criminal proceedings relating to the murder of the deceased were pending against the plaintiff.
During the pendency of the suit, the Defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred under Sections 4 and 6 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. However, the High Court set aside the order and restored the suit for adjudication on merits, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Defendants/Appellants
The counsel for the Defendants/Appellants argued that the plaint itself disclosed that the properties were purchased in the name of the deceased using the plaintiff’s funds, thereby making the transaction benami in nature under Section 2(9) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. It was contended that the suit was therefore barred under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Defendants/Appellants further submitted that the alleged fiduciary relationship pleaded by the plaintiff could not attract the exemption under Section 2(9)(A)(ii) of the Act. Reliance was placed on T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, Valliammal v. Subramaniam, K. Akbar Ali v. K. Umar Khan, and Sree Surya Developers & Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad.
Contentions of the Plaintiff/Respondent.
The counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent contended that the suit was based on a valid Will and testamentary succession under the Indian Succession Act and not on any benami transaction. It was argued that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court could look only at the averments contained in the plaint. The Plaintiff/Respondent further submitted that the transaction fell within the fiduciary exception under Section 2(9)(A)(ii) of the Benami Act and that disputed questions regarding the validity of the Will and the nature of the transaction required a full-fledged trial. Reliance was placed on Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy, Pawan Kumar v. Babulal, and Marcel Martins v. M. Printer.
Observation of the Court
The Supreme Court observed that the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a substantive power meant to prevent abuse of the judicial process and unnecessary trials. The Court held that while considering rejection of a plaint, courts are not expected to adopt a mechanical or formal approach but must undertake a meaningful reading of the plaint along with the documents relied upon by the plaintiff.
The Court further highlighted that if the pleadings, taken as a whole, disclose that the suit is barred by any law, the plaint must be rejected at the threshold itself. It emphasized that litigants cannot avoid statutory bars through clever drafting or by disguising the true nature of the transaction.
The Court observed that “Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act provides that a person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered.” The Court further stated that “The principle underlying the provision is founded upon public policy, justice, and good conscience, namely, that no person can be permitted to profit from his own wrong.”
The Court also observed that“If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.” Further, the Court remarked that“Admission of the plaint cannot be a mechanical process by which the note of the Registry is merely endorsed by the Court.”
Decision of the court
The Court allowed the appeal and reiterated the settled principles governing rejection of plaints under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court emphasised that trial courts must meaningfully scrutinize pleadings and reject suits at the threshold where the plaint itself discloses a statutory bar or an illusory cause of action.
Case Title: Manjula and Others v. D.A. Srinivas
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 7370 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7924 of 2024]
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR; Mrs. Anuparna Bordoloi, Adv.; Mr. Narveer Yadav, Adv.; Mr. Dhanush M, Adv.; Mr. Siddhartha Sati, Adv.; Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Adv.; Ms. Ruchi Kumari, Adv.; Mr. Akshay Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Sai Tanishka K, Adv.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv.; Mr. T.M. Shivakumar, Adv.; Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR; Ms. Sanjana, Adv.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
